Delhi High Court - Orders
Manoj vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Ltd on 18 November, 2022
Author: Rajnish Bhatnagar
Bench: Rajnish Bhatnagar
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 365/2022
MANOJ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Yashika
Miglani and Mr. Vibhor Jain,
Advocates.
versus
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate for R-1/Ins.
Co. (through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
% 18.11.2022 CM APPL. 49650/2022 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 49504/2022 (delay of 37 days in filing the appeal) For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 365/2022 & CM APPL. 49503/2022 (for additional evidence) The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act against the order and judgment dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT- Delhi in MACT No. 983/2017.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that because of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:23.11.2022 15:41:39 accident, the appellant has suffered Erectile Dysfunction, and for clearing said defect, he has placed on record two estimates; one amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- and other amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-, but the same were not considered by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that this disability has ruined the married life of the appellant, and he is not able to perform his matrimonial obligations. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj Kumar and Ors (MAC.APP. 423/2017 decided on 13.09.2019) to contend that appellant was also entitled to non-pecuniary damages under this head. He further submitted that appellant remained in different hospital for his treatment, and has proved those documents on record. He further submitted that appellant has not been compensated for loss of income for the period he remained in the hospital during those days.
Issue notice. Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate appears for respondent no.1 and accepts notice.
Service of notice to respondent no.2 stands dispensed with as it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that no relief is claimed against him.
At this stage, counsel for the parties submitted that there is possibility of settlement in the matter.
In view of this, list the matter before the Pre-Sitting Lok Adalat on 8th December, 2022.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J NOVEMBER 18, 2022/ib Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:23.11.2022 15:41:39